- Borneo Jimmy
- Feb 27, 2007
-
by Smythe
|
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/329585/sesame-nation-mark-steyn
quote:Unlike Mitt, I loathe Sesame Street. It bears primary responsibility for what the Canadian blogger Binky calls the de-monsterization of childhood — the idea that there are no evil monsters out there at the edges of the map, just shaggy creatures who look a little funny and can sometimes be a bit grouchy about it because people prejudge them until they learn to celebrate diversity and help Cranky the Friendly Monster go recycling. That is not unrelated to the infantilization of our society. Marinate three generations of Americans in that pabulum and it’s no surprise you wind up with unprotected diplomats dragged to their deaths from their “safe house” in Benghazi. Or as J. Scott Gration, the president’s special envoy to Sudan, said in 2009, in the most explicit Sesamization of American foreign policy: “We’ve got to think about giving out cookies. Kids, countries — they react to gold stars, smiley faces, handshakes . . . ” The butchers of Darfur aren’t blood-drenched machete-wielding genocidal killers but just Cookie Monsters whom we haven’t given enough cookies. I’m not saying there’s a direct line between Bert & Ernie and Barack & Hillary . . . well, actually I am.
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 20:54
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2024 04:46
|
|
- King Dopplepopolos
- Aug 3, 2007
-
Give us a raise, loser!
|
Wow, Mark Steyn is an even bigger rear end in a top hat than I thought. And I already thought he was pretty much king of the assholes. Seriously, Sesame Street led to the Benghazi consulate attack?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 21:33
|
|
- Fuckt Tupp
- Apr 19, 2007
-
Science
|
Who are they to tell our kids that certain people shouldn't be seen as less than human and scapegoated into genocide?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 21:46
|
|
- Political Whores
- Feb 13, 2012
-
|
Man, it's not like statistically, the person most likely to harm a child is not some unspecified monster on the edges of society, but someone that the child (and their parents) know and often trust. If only we taught our kids more about how dangerous those foreigners monsters are, kids wouldn't be in danger, and diplomats would never be killed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 21:49
|
|
- Bruce Leroy
- Jun 10, 2010
-
|
Who are they to tell our kids that certain people shouldn't be seen as less than human and scapegoated into genocide?
Exactly. He's a fascist who is upset that programs like Sesame Street are stymieing his ability to demonize and dehumanize those he views as enemies and his subsequent pushes to rile up the populace into violence against these enemies rather than solving their problems diplomatically.
What's really ironic is that he describes himself as a "human rights activist" in his NRO profile and yet alludes to the Darfur conflict that way. Does he know absolutely anything about Sudan's history and how it led to the current status quo of dehumanizing other groups so that it's easier to commit atrocities against them? I'm guessing the answer is "no" because he's a fascist piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 00:23
|
|
- sexpig by night
- Sep 8, 2011
-
by Azathoth
|
Tryin to tell MY kids Africa isn't full of savage ape men who will devour your flesh? Nice try, commie, that's not how our founders wanted it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 00:41
|
|
- Armyman25
- Sep 6, 2005
-
|
Wow, Mark Steyn is an even bigger rear end in a top hat than I thought. And I already thought he was pretty much king of the assholes. Seriously, Sesame Street led to the Benghazi consulate attack?
Reading through his bio he looks to be yet another conservative chicken hawk. Full of bluster about making war against those people, but never doing anything more dangerous than talking on the radio or writing about it. Funny how so many of the political folks who are most eager to go to war are the ones who've never served and aren't putting themselves to any personal risk.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 00:54
|
|
- MaxxBot
- Oct 6, 2003
-
you could have clapped
you should have clapped!!
|
At first I was enraged by this Op-ed piece but now I'm just sad, I can't really feel anything but  about what it would be like to consider this description of gay life in the south as "acceptance, admiration and even respect." I'm just surprised that the times published this as is, almost no gay person who regularly reads the times is going to consider this "acceptance."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/opinion/were-here-were-queer-yall.html
quote:
Many people assume that because the South is the nation’s most evangelical and politically conservative region, it is probably also a hotbed for hate crimes against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. But while such crimes do occur, they are less common than in large urban centers, where the absence of a tight community and the abundance of strangers make it easier to target people for their differences.
I should know: as a lesbian who has lived in the South my entire life, and in a small town in the Deep South for part of it, I’ve met many people — men, women and transgendered — whose sexual identity has not prevented them from living a life of acceptance, admiration and even respect by their families and communities.
My friend Helen and her partner, Kathleen, for example, have made an enormous impact on the small town of Louisville, Ga., in rural Jefferson County. Several years ago they bought an old fire station and turned it into an art gallery. What began as a way to showcase rural artists has expanded into a larger community endeavor in which children from the local public schools, many of whom are quite poor, are given free classes in art and art appreciation.
And the gallery openings? The last one I attended drew nearly 100 people.
It’s an unspoken truth that Helen and Kathleen are in a committed relationship, and yet they’re invited to social gatherings as a couple, and only a few months ago Helen gave the graduation address at the local high school. People know who they are and very likely understand the nature of their relationship, and it’s clear they value the investment that Helen and Kathleen have made in their community.
In the mid-1990s, while in graduate school, I lived in the small city of Hattiesburg, Miss. There I met gays and lesbians who came to Hattiesburg from nearby rural communities like Petal, Wiggins, Runnelstown and even more far-flung places to enjoy the one gay bar that was within reasonable driving distance, or simply hang out with friends. Though they came for the comforts of a larger L.G.B.T. community, their sexual orientation was often known to their communities back home.
They were gay, but they weren’t only that. Many of them were working class, from religiously conservative families and often politically conservative themselves.
One woman I met, Sandy, is what you’d describe as butch. She drives a truck and she belongs to a (nearly) all-male hunting club. She goes on coon hunts, which she’s described to me as romantic adventures with the baying of hounds in the cool of the night. Her mother, on the other hand, was a proud member of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, a prim and proper Southern lady.
Because my dissertation was about the U.D.C., Sandy took me to meet her. While at her mother’s house, Sandy went back to her old bedroom and returned with a badge she had won in the eighth grade — for sewing a dress. She seemed to take pride in the fact that as a woman who had pretty much rejected traditional femininity, she had won top prize at her school for sewing.
I don’t think her mother ever openly acknowledged her daughter’s sexual orientation, which she certainly knew, because such things usually go unsaid in the South.
Most Southerners who aren’t comfortable with homosexuality don’t use terms like “gay” or “lesbian.” They’ll use euphemisms. A gay man is a “little light in the loafers” or has “sugar in his britches.” If a lesbian has a partner, the partner is often referred to as her “friend.” But everyone knows exactly what it means.
To be sure, such acceptance is often possible because, in a small community, gays and lesbians don’t represent a large population to begin with. As my partner, who grew up in rural South Carolina, told me, “in my high school, the L.G.B.T. group had a membership of one and was taking applications.”
And there is a limit to the acceptance. In the rural South, people love their sons and daughters and they may even break bread with the florist and his partner, but they still believe homosexuality is a sin. They draw the line at a gay pride march down Main Street, and they won’t stand for gay marriage.
Still, as Alana’s Uncle Lee has shown America, there are gays living in the rural South who don’t all set out for the big city. They lead rich lives and have families, and sometimes even communities, that love them and accept them for who they are.
MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 07:24 on Oct 11, 2012
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 07:22
|
|
- sexpig by night
- Sep 8, 2011
-
by Azathoth
|
Nice to know that the dudes who shoved me against walls and kicked my rear end because I had a lisp and hung out with the girls as a kid were really just big ol sweetie pies who would totally be cool with their FAMILY being gay or whatever (because, hahaha, homosexual youth homelessness isn't a plague in this nation or anything!) they just were following the tradition of beating up anyone else who looks gay.
Man that woman is a huge piece of poo poo and literally why gay rights faces trouble in the south. It's her, she's literally why. Maybe the 'I'm so sad for her' will come later but right now reading that just pisses me off.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 07:44
|
|
- musclecoder
- Oct 23, 2006
-
I'm all about meeting girls. I'm all about meeting guys.
|
quote:Most Southerners who aren’t comfortable with homosexuality don’t use terms like “gay” or “lesbian.” They’ll use euphemisms. A gay man is a “little light in the loafers” or has “sugar in his britches.” If a lesbian has a partner, the partner is often referred to as her “friend.” But everyone knows exactly what it means.
Living in the South literally my entire life, they'll more often use terms like "human being" or "dyke" or "tranny".
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 12:20
|
|
- Bel_Canto
- Apr 23, 2007
-
"Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo."
|
Wow, it's almost as if a refusal to speak openly about queer people indicates a desire to see us go away!
As far as I'm concerned, the lady in that article might as well be a card-carrying member of GOProud. Note her handwaving of the problem of LGBT youth because hey, they'll just figure it out, and it's not like people refusing to talk about who they are will engender lifelong feelings of self-hatred or something!
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 16:32
|
|
- MaxxBot
- Oct 6, 2003
-
you could have clapped
you should have clapped!!
|
Even GOProud and most gay conservatives are out of the closet at least and probably wouldn't be comfortable with referring to their partner as a "friend" in any context, this is way worse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 16:43
|
|
- Zwabu
- Aug 7, 2006
-
|
Living in the South literally my entire life, they'll more often use terms like "human being" or "dyke" or "tranny".
Euphemisms!
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 16:43
|
|
- Political Whores
- Feb 13, 2012
-
|
"Southerners are good people, and many of them are friends with black people. They just draw the line at them using the front door of the hotel, or the front seats on the bus..."
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 21:34
|
|
- sexpig by night
- Sep 8, 2011
-
by Azathoth
|
Even GOProud and most gay conservatives are out of the closet at least and probably wouldn't be comfortable with referring to their partner as a "friend" in any context, this is way worse.
GOProud is the scum on the bottom of the LGBT barrel, I have zero issue imagining any of them would write something like that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 21:51
|
|
- Borneo Jimmy
- Feb 27, 2007
-
by Smythe
|
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/174277401.html
quote:
Just looking at the names, conservative and liberal (or progressive), it's logical to assume that the first group is going to be more apt to resist change: change in policy, style, fashion, technology, tradition, religion, etc. Sometimes what we discover via science is the trigger for such change. So it makes sense that, at times, conservatives might also be apt to deny certain findings.
Indeed, that's the conventional wisdom.
It's why books like this are written: "The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science -- and Reality," by Chris Mooney.
However, when we enter politics, another wrinkle gets introduced: ideology -- how one believes the world should be. And ideology seems to mean more today than in the recent past. People are more active and reactive, more jumpy and fearful of who gets elected or that bill getting passed or the Supreme Court deciding one way or another. In the realm of that emotion, it's revealed that ideology creates enemies of science from all sides.
I recently saw this headline from Slate.com succinctly making this very point: "GMO Opponents Are the Climate Skeptics of the Left."
GMO refers to genetically modified foods. The headline attacks progressives who rally against such food despite little evidence that it is bad for us to eat. It compares GMO opponents to the politically conservative-minded who deny evidence of climate change.
There are all sorts of other examples.
Stereotypically ...
Conservatives don't like:
• The science behind evolution.
• The science behind climate change.
• The science behind man-made climate change.
• The science showing the benefits of universal health care or any number of other government-funded programs.
• The science showing the benefits of treatment over incarceration for addicts.
• The science showing that homosexuality is not a choice (but they do then like the science showing how race and gender imprint certain behavioral attributes).
Liberals don't like:
• The science behind the safety of genetically modified foods.
• The science behind the impact one's genes has on intelligence, behavior and personality -- with the notable behavioral exception of sexual orientation.
• The science showing that the income gap between men and women is largely explained by gender roles in marriage.
• New technology that allows humans to consume at the level we currently are (Stephen Levitt, author of "Freakonomics," postulates that among this population there's an urge to see humanity be punished for what we've done to the Earth.)
There are wrinkles within this wrinkle. First, it's not exactly apples to apples, because liberals' problems with science sometimes go the other way: misusing scientific data to promote a cause later revealed to be bogus. Such scares historically have involved climate change and the supposed shortages of food, oil, forests and minerals.
This article from Reason.com introduces us to some of these wrinkles: "Conservatives Don't Care About Science. (Neither Do Liberals.)"
Second, one could go into economics. It's not as hard a science, though, so I didn't mention the shortcomings on both sides regarding the ignoring or misunderstanding of data and/or concepts such as economic growth, job creation, fair taxation and deficit spending.
Third, there are some issues such as vaccines and The Bailouts which see members of the right and left in agreement in their dissent -- albeit for entirely different reasons: concern of government reach vs. concern for corporate influence.
Whether economics, the use of science for one's own agenda, or good ol' science denial, I think it all boils down to what you're most afraid of -- afraid of change, afraid of being taken advantage of, afraid of others being exploited, afraid of being invaded -- that dictates your acceptance of truth vs. your insistence that your ideology is the way of the world.
In conclusion, people in general aren't very willing to undig their heels from the ground, even when given evidence that their ideas are wrong. My challenge to you is to recognize when you're digging in your heels at the expense of truth, for the sake of your ideology.
Why don't liberals understand  ?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2012 19:23
|
|
- Bruce Leroy
- Jun 10, 2010
-
|
Jesus Christ, people are still promoting that bullshit from "The Bell Curve?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 00:04
|
|
- Borneo Jimmy
- Feb 27, 2007
-
by Smythe
|
Jesus Christ, people are still promoting that bullshit from "The Bell Curve?"
I also love how he touts GMO foods but thinks food shortages are some leftist hoax.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 06:54
|
|
- Gormless Gormster
- Jul 28, 2012
-
AVE IMPERATOR!
Or something
|
The author demonstrates his mastery of ancient history in ignoring the use of Roman games to honor their gods, in which some games involved the death of its participants to honor them. The Romans also had the balls to declare one of their own god for a day as apart of a Roman general earning a triumph. My favorite is when the Roman's would capture a hated enemy and keep them imprisoned for a year so on the anniversary of their great victory they would bring out the prison to be publicly strangled as part of the celebration. Of course there is the standard, gluttony, bizarre sex romps, treachery that was part and parcel of upper class Roman society. (My sources for comparison against the author on the point of historical fact: History minor, the collected Discourses and speeches of Cicero, a famous lawyer whose cases gave insights into the scandals of leading Roman families.)
What?
Your points might be valid if the author was blatantly holding up Roman society and culture up as 'superior', but he isn't. He's using a period viewpoint from a well known historical figure to illustrate his point.
Good job writing a large block of extraneous text showcasing nothing but your own arrogance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 10:31
|
|
- Bruce Leroy
- Jun 10, 2010
-
|
I also love how he touts GMO foods but thinks food shortages are some leftist hoax.
Even better are the interconnections involved in the different sciences they deny. Food shortages are caused by increased droughts and decreased precipitation due to global warming which are also causing wildfires that are damaging crops and arable land. This is why Russia halted wheat exports.
Burning fossil fuels is one of the largest contributors to global warming through the production of greenhouse gases. Another large source is the burning of vegetation, which causes deforestation, including rainforests, to create farmland to grow the crops and plants necessary to feed/graze farm animals to meet the increasing demand for meat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 01:00
|
|
- CrushedB
- Jun 2, 2008
-
|
http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/christine_flowers/20121019_Christine_M__Flowers__Some_women_don_t_know_how_good_they_have_it.html
Literally "shut up women, there's someone worse off than you so reproductive rights aren't important."
quote:THERE IS A MAN from the Northeast who left his native Pakistan many years ago, worked hard, got his green card, and brought his family to the United States. He is a very good person, a proud American citizen who plans to vote this November because, as he tells me, this country has given him so much and he has a duty to return the debt.
We are lucky to have him.
He is lucky, too. If he were still living in the Swatt region on the border with Afghanistan, every day would bring with it the possibility of death. It is a part of the world where young girls must hide in their homes if they want to learn reading, where child marriages are commonplace and where the Taliban rules.
My friend has two daughters. They don't need to shroud their faces when they go out into the street, are able to choose their own friends and, most importantly, walk with their heads high into the classrooms they love.
For this, more than anything else, my friend rejoices in the greatness and promise of America.
I never fully understood what it meant to be from Pakistan, or any other country where my gender was a birth defect. I've always had the best schooling, unlimited opportunities and men in my life who said "go ahead" instead of "follow behind me."
I've learned a few lessons from "Salim," including the importance of humility (haven't excelled in that subject) enthusiasm in little things (like running water and functioning electricity) and tranquility of spirit.
More importantly, I've learned true gratitude for the freedom that I, a woman, possess.
That's why the recent talk of a war on my gender angers me to the point that I want to scream. "Have you, my sisters, lost your senses?"
Sandra Fluke with her simpering demands and outstretched hands makes me ashamed to call myself a woman, makes me want to sit this Georgetown law student down and tell her the story of Malala Yousafzai.
Sandy has spent so much time this summer and fall drumming up sympathy for her condom crusade that she probably hasn't heard about this Pakistani woman, really just a child of 14, who was shot in the head last week by an enraged group of Taliban soldiers.
Her crime? Speaking out about the importance of education. Teaching her friends how to read. Meeting with ambassadors and other important men, asking them to do something for the women of her beleaguered country.
Malala is in a coma now, and no one knows if she'll awaken. If she does, there is a strong possibility that this brilliant young girl who spoke multiple languages and loved literature will be brain-damaged, blind or unable to breathe on her own.
I asked Salim about Malala, and he shook his head. "This is why I came here 13 years ago," he said to me. "My oldest daughter was 5 when I left Pakistan, and I knew that if I stayed, she would never have the life I dreamed for her." Now, his beautiful firstborn is finishing high school, contemplating college and stretching wings that would have been crushed under the weight of the Taliban.
Salim looks at his own child and thinks of Malala. "I feel for that young girl's father," he says. "I know what he is going through just now, and I understand the emptiness in his soul. It could have been my own."
Perhaps Sandra Fluke might learn a few important lessons from Salim. She could put down her torts-and-contracts books for a few minutes and look into my friend's beautiful blue eyes, listen to him talk about American promise and opportunity, see his brilliant teenager and reflect on the message she's been trying to sell us for the past contentious months.
For all of its superficial imperfections, this country loves its women. It gives us ample space to develop interests and skills, respects our right to earn an education, demands that we be treated equally at work and in the sports world, and even legislates creatively so we can do whatever we want with our reproductive parts.
But for Sandy, that wasn't enough. She and her like-minded friends wanted all of this, plus free birth control. They wanted to make the rest of the country believe that women were being "raped" when they submitted to a legitimate medical procedure. They screamed bloody murder when the highest court of the land said you couldn't dismember an infant and call that "choice."
Malala Yousafzai lies in a coma, because she wanted to go to school. Sandra Fluke earns accolades because she wants the government to subsidize her love life.
Someone needs a reality check.
"legislates creatively"
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2012 20:08
|
|
- I AM GRANDO
- Aug 20, 2006
-
|
"legitimate medical procedure"
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2012 21:57
|
|
- King Dopplepopolos
- Aug 3, 2007
-
Give us a raise, loser!
|
moronic editorial writer posted:
Sandra Fluke earns accolades because she wants the government to subsidize her love life.
People on the right just refuse to acknowledge the actual things she said before Congress, even though you can listen to and/or watch her testimony and can also read the transcript. I like to call it "selective literacy."
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2012 23:49
|
|
- Bruce Leroy
- Jun 10, 2010
-
|
People on the right just refuse to acknowledge the actual things she said before Congress, even though you can listen to and/or watch her testimony and can also read the transcript. I like to call it "selective literacy."
Sandra Fluke deserves the lifetime achievement award for "most misquoted person." Seriously, will conservatives ever stop this intellectually dishonest smear campaign against her and what they've imagined she said?
Regardless, that article is the women's rights version of the complacency and ignorance people have towards labor rights. They take for granted the progress women have made and act like it just kind of naturally happened. They completely ignore how hard women have had to fight for what they currently have, which is still significantly less than parity with men on multiple levels (e.g. pay disparities, discrimination and sexual harassment in the workplace, rape culture, etc.).
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2012 04:20
|
|
- VideoTapir
- Oct 18, 2005
-
He'll tire eventually.
|
Sandra Fluke deserves the lifetime achievement award for "most misquoted person." Seriously, will conservatives ever stop this intellectually dishonest smear campaign against her and what they've imagined she said?
Regardless, that article is the women's rights version of the complacency and ignorance people have towards labor rights. They take for granted the progress women have made and act like it just kind of naturally happened. They completely ignore how hard women have had to fight for what they currently have, which is still significantly less than parity with men on multiple levels (e.g. pay disparities, discrimination and sexual harassment in the workplace, rape culture, etc.).
When you're just flat-out lying, I don't think you have to qualify "dishonest" with "intellectually."
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2012 10:42
|
|
- Guilty Spork
- Feb 26, 2011
-
Thunder rolled. It rolled a six.
|
So her argument basically boils down to, "Hey, women here have it SO much better than Pakistan!" as if that's an apt comparison. Idiots.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2012 14:19
|
|
- PrBacterio
- Jul 19, 2000
-
|
It's the main reason why, sometime around 2001 or 2002, I stopped reading the Onion with any regularity. Nevertheless, I don't think a attempt at a satirical poke at corporations on the WSJ page really qualifies as a "terrible editorial [or] opinion piece."
The Onion posted:'I Feel Your Pain,' Romney Tells Campaign Rally Attendees Who Make $20 Million A Year
Millions Head To Internet To Figure Out Their Own Opinions About Debate
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2012 15:41
|
|
- Mo_Steel
- Mar 7, 2008
-
Let's Clock Into The Sunset Together
-
Fun Shoe
|
The Star Tribune had this genuinely terrible Commentary today:
quote:Marriage Amendment: Vote yes
Marriage between a man and a woman is a relationship unlike any other, and government has a compelling interest in supporting it.
"Children are the world's most valuable resource and its best hope for the future."
-- JOHN F. KENNEDY
• • •
There are countless wonderful programs and organizations dedicated to making sure that kids are safe, involved in school and off drugs, out of poverty, eating healthier, not engaging in self-destructive behavior, and achieving their dreams.
I remember practicing "stop, drop and roll" in first grade, completing "Dare to Keep Kids Off Drugs" in fifth grade, and having teachers and counselors guide me through the right classes and activities to set me on a successful path to college. As a former teacher, I adapted curriculum to better meet individual student needs.
Politicians at both state and federal levels often focus their debates on whether policies will help or hurt children. Even courts are guided by the legal principle that family conflicts should be adjudicated to provide for "the best interests of the child."
It seems everyone realizes that what's best for kids should guide our governmental policies and social institutions. This is because children really are our most precious resource, and government and society have a compelling interest in seeing them thrive.
It is surprising, then, that the conversation about what the definition of marriage in Minnesota should be has left many who speak up about the best interests of kids labeled as "bigots," "haters," "discriminators" and worse.
Marriage is the most prochild institution we have -- and the only institution that connects children with their parents. Through marriage, men and women come together complementarily to form one union, not only for the benefit of the couple, but also for the children who benefit from being loved and raised by their mother and father.
Marriage says to society as a whole: For every child born, there is a recognized mother and father, accountable to the child and each other. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has said that marriage is "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the [human] race."
The overwhelming body of social science supports what we already understand to be true -- children do best when raised by their married mother and father. As the journal Child Trends affirms, "[R]esearch clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage."
Every child has a right to know and, to the extent possible, be cared for by the two people who brought them into the world. Not every marriage produces children, but every child has a mother and father. And we all have a right to live in a society that recognizes the importance of mothers and fathers for a child's well-being.
Men and women are equal in God's eyes, but that does not mean they are the same or interchangeable. Marriage brings men and women together to share unique and complementary gifts that have both individual and community benefits and forms a relationship with the capacity to bring forth new life.
Marriage between a man and a woman is a relationship unlike any other, and government has a compelling interest in supporting it. There are lots of loving and committed relationships in our lives, but they are not marriage.
The Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment simply preserves our current, timeless definition of marriage in our state Constitution, recognizing that kids do best when raised by their married mother and father. The amendment also honors what most Minnesotans understand to be true -- that marriage is about more than just the desires of adults who want to commit themselves to each other. Children are also an integral and indispensable part of the marital relationship.
The amendment also keeps voters in charge of the definition of marriage in Minnesota. Our opponents believe that judges and politicians in our state should be allowed to change our definition of marriage to something genderless that doesn't take kids into consideration, without permission from the people.
This very thing happened in Iowa in 2009 when the Iowa Supreme Court used a case that was factually nearly identical to a case pending in the Hennepin County District Court right now to overturn that state's statutory marriage laws (also very similar to Minnesota's own statutory marriage definition) and legalize same-sex "marriage."
Iowans never got the chance to vote on the issue, and polling at the time showed a strong majority in favor of maintaining the one-man, one-woman definition of marriage in Iowa.
The marriage amendment would prevent the same negative consequences to kids and parents in Minnesota that we have seen happening to parents and kids in the wake of Massachusetts's decision to legalize same-sex "marriage" in 2003. Children as young as kindergartners are taught about homosexual relationships. One brave parent who protested such instruction to his 6-year-old was arrested for "trespassing," spent the night in jail, and was taken to court in handcuffs.
Both the school systems and courts have ruled that parents who object to such instruction have no parental right to opt their children out of this instruction or even to prior notice of such instruction. At the eighth-grade level, students were instructed on lesbian sex, including the use of sex toys. When questioned about parents who would inevitably object, the teacher said, "Give me a break, [same-sex marriage] is legal now." And the list goes on.
There is nothing bigoted, hateful or discriminatory in talking about what is best for our kids. In fact, the time is only a few weeks away in Minnesota when we can speak up on behalf of our kids. We can show them that we do make our policies based on what's in their best interests and not based upon the desires of the day's political activists.
We can show them that they are part of the marital relationship and not just an afterthought, taking a distant second place to adult desire. We can preserve marriage, the most prochild institution ever created, as between one man and one woman in Minnesota.
We can vote "yes" for kids on the Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment on Nov. 6.
--------------------------
Autumn Leva is a spokesperson for Minnesota for Marriage.
An awful lot of and just generally spiteful hate for people outside the perceived norm there. Emphasis on some really lovely parts is mine. That body of social science that is overwhelmingly against gay couples raising kids apparently doesn't include crazy fringe groups like the American Psychological Association.
Mo_Steel fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Oct 21, 2012
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2012 18:06
|
|
- King Dopplepopolos
- Aug 3, 2007
-
Give us a raise, loser!
|
Oddly enough I tend to hold the U.S. to higher standards than I do Pakistan. I never know what to make of people who insist this is the best country in the world yet show no interest in making any effort to act like it.
It's weird, isn't it. They hold religiously to American Exceptionalism and believe without any doubt that America is the best country on Earth, yet they so often defend America by comparing them to the some of the worst governments on Earth.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 00:16
|
|
- Borneo Jimmy
- Feb 27, 2007
-
by Smythe
|
quote:At the eighth-grade level, students were instructed on lesbian sex, including the use of sex toys.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 03:58
|
|
- Doctor Spaceman
- Jul 6, 2010
-
"Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."
|
It's weird, isn't it. They hold religiously to American Exceptionalism and believe without any doubt that America is the best country on Earth, yet they so often defend America by comparing them to the some of the worst governments on Earth.
They'll also use Exceptionalism as a negative; things like UHC can't work because America is different to every other nation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 04:08
|
|
- eatenmyeyes
- Mar 29, 2001
-
-
Grimey Drawer
|
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/french-youth-activists-commemorate-charles-martel-victory-by-occupying-megamosque-video/
I'm unsure if the site has ever been explored in this thread, but the comments section of the linked article give a fairly accurate indication of the site's overall character.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 07:09
|
|
- Teriyaki Hairpiece
- Dec 29, 2006
-
I'm nae the voice o' the darkened thistle, but th' darkened thistle cannae bear the sight o' our Bonnie Prince Bernie nae mair.
|
The Star Tribune had this genuinely terrible Commentary today:
An awful lot of and just generally spiteful hate for people outside the perceived norm there. Emphasis on some really lovely parts is mine. That body of social science that is overwhelmingly against gay couples raising kids apparently doesn't include crazy fringe groups like the American Psychological Association.
edit:
This part is just one of the bits I'm talking about.
quote:
The Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment simply preserves our current, timeless definition of marriage in our state Constitution, recognizing that kids do best when raised by their married mother and father.
Teriyaki Hairpiece fucked around with this message at 11:00 on Oct 22, 2012
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 10:54
|
|
- peter banana
- Sep 2, 2008
-
Feminism is a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.
|
Or maybe people who are unable to have children! Guess they can't get married either!
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 13:41
|
|
- Teriyaki Hairpiece
- Dec 29, 2006
-
I'm nae the voice o' the darkened thistle, but th' darkened thistle cannae bear the sight o' our Bonnie Prince Bernie nae mair.
|
Also, on a non-political note, that journal the writer cites, Child Trends, sounds like a trade publication for witches who fatten up children so they can eat them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 14:02
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2024 04:46
|
|
- Grand Theft Autobot
- Feb 28, 2008
-
I'm something of a fucking idiot myself
|
Also, there is no reputable social science research that proves that kids raised by gay parents turn out any different from kids raised by straight parents. But hate away!
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 14:02
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 20:54
